Twitter is unique and came about due to specific circumstances at a particular time. It cannot be reproduced. Even if a similar service, such as Gab, grew to the same prominence, it would not be the same as Twitter even if progressives managed to capture it, as is obvious in the case of Gab.
I guess it depends on what you mean by compete. Porn twitter and regular discourse twitter are different spheres. I imagine most people don’t use twitter for porn, they’re highly segregated from each other.
Sure you’ll increase your overall company revenue if you have a porn section but that’s just separate from the core purpose of gab.
Patrick Little was a famous case. Very openly anti-jew person running for political office. Gab chose to censor him off their platform. Gab's owner has since shifted to adopt more openly anti-jewish users and even retweeted some interesting posts. Gab's owner never apologized and invited Patrick Little back. It's a small gesture that would go a long way to increase trust in Gab.
gab's owner openly espouses "asks the questions" that would get people banned from most social media, even when the questions are legitimate and true. he openly blames jews for shit. if he banned patrick, i strongly suspect there was something else going on beyond patrick just not worshiping jews.
I disagree. All it would take is for athletes, movie stars and rappers to move to a new platform and NPC's would follow them without a doubt. And the media would happily move as well.
Whether that will ever happen is another story, and it seems unlikely now but a lot can change.
My point is that it's definitely possible for a competitor to overtake Twitter, but they need the bulk of famous people to leave Twitter otherwise it'll never happen.
All it would take is... x to move to a new platform and NPC's would follow
That's not the solution, that's the problem; they won't move because any other service isn't Twitter. They like it there (in so far as anyone who says they don't would be ejected from the elite social clique immediately), so why would they move?
Monopolies are very hard to break too, and Twitter has a monopoly when it comes to that type of social media site. The Irish president, a Marxist dwarf loved by all deviants, has just come out against "billionaires owning social media". The same little runt never said a thing about control of social media before when it was in the hands of people who pushed his views.
What I find fascinating is just how valuable the media is: Social Media including Twitter, legacy media like CNN/MSNBC/Washington Post, Hollywood, etc, yet at the same time how small their valued worth is. All of these outlets combined are a small portion of our GDP, yet wield an immensely outsized influence on how policy is conducted, both domestic and foreign.
Twitter is an example of this. Only $44B, but suddenly the globalists are panicking because it's worth way more than that to their agenda.
That's what I find interesting. Why make all the fuzz about twitter? These people have killed and started these mainstream websites, why wouldn't they just do it again?
Reminds me of when he said 'who do you think owns the media?' and every Jew in sight started screaming about antisemitism even though nobody had mentioned Jews at all.
I remember that one. He was responding to someone talking about "news media holding super rich people accountable." So yeah, selective blindness, and deflection when not possible.
Just coming to post this. Can't imagine why people who are getting dinged for attacking parents and supporting/being groomers would want to attack someone who wants free speech.
trafficking in hate speech and dangerous scientific theories
This paternalistic horseshit and the casual way it's referred to makes me want to spew.
"Hate speech" does not exist. This term must be singled out for ridicule at all times.
The idea of a "dangerous scientific theory" is the equivalent of a thought crime. If you dare to propose a hypothesis that challenges the truth claims of a sacred cow you are subject to denouncement or worse. Just look at transgenderism. See Pinker's essay "In Defense of Dangerous Ideas."
Twitter is unique and came about due to specific circumstances at a particular time. It cannot be reproduced. Even if a similar service, such as Gab, grew to the same prominence, it would not be the same as Twitter even if progressives managed to capture it, as is obvious in the case of Gab.
gab could have gotten bigger than twitter but they chose to censor. why use gab when I can go get censored on a bigger site if I'm ok with that?
Based on his response I’m going to guess he’s upset that they don’t allow porn.
Let me know when you can openly promote heathen Pegan beliefs.
I guess it depends on what you mean by compete. Porn twitter and regular discourse twitter are different spheres. I imagine most people don’t use twitter for porn, they’re highly segregated from each other.
Sure you’ll increase your overall company revenue if you have a porn section but that’s just separate from the core purpose of gab.
Nobody mentioned lolisho dude.
yes... clearly the reason gab is not winning is because they ban cartoon child porn... GTFO with that shit.
no they don't allow j question
Torba openly criticizes jews tho..?
torba?
Patrick Little was a famous case. Very openly anti-jew person running for political office. Gab chose to censor him off their platform. Gab's owner has since shifted to adopt more openly anti-jewish users and even retweeted some interesting posts. Gab's owner never apologized and invited Patrick Little back. It's a small gesture that would go a long way to increase trust in Gab.
damage was done. we should have realized when it was named gab, that's a soy name.
gab's owner openly espouses "asks the questions" that would get people banned from most social media, even when the questions are legitimate and true. he openly blames jews for shit. if he banned patrick, i strongly suspect there was something else going on beyond patrick just not worshiping jews.
Maybe controlled oppo trying to make the platform look bad?
bad take, that debate is over. lesson learned for gab
You gotta be really retarded if Gab censors you.
I disagree. All it would take is for athletes, movie stars and rappers to move to a new platform and NPC's would follow them without a doubt. And the media would happily move as well.
Whether that will ever happen is another story, and it seems unlikely now but a lot can change.
It still wouldn't be Twitter, which proudly took credit for the Arab Spring.
Obviously it wouldn't be Twitter...
My point is that it's definitely possible for a competitor to overtake Twitter, but they need the bulk of famous people to leave Twitter otherwise it'll never happen.
My point is that it wouldn't have the same value to the regime as Twitter.
That's not the solution, that's the problem; they won't move because any other service isn't Twitter. They like it there (in so far as anyone who says they don't would be ejected from the elite social clique immediately), so why would they move?
Monopolies are very hard to break too, and Twitter has a monopoly when it comes to that type of social media site. The Irish president, a Marxist dwarf loved by all deviants, has just come out against "billionaires owning social media". The same little runt never said a thing about control of social media before when it was in the hands of people who pushed his views.
What I find fascinating is just how valuable the media is: Social Media including Twitter, legacy media like CNN/MSNBC/Washington Post, Hollywood, etc, yet at the same time how small their valued worth is. All of these outlets combined are a small portion of our GDP, yet wield an immensely outsized influence on how policy is conducted, both domestic and foreign.
Twitter is an example of this. Only $44B, but suddenly the globalists are panicking because it's worth way more than that to their agenda.
That's what I find interesting. Why make all the fuzz about twitter? These people have killed and started these mainstream websites, why wouldn't they just do it again?
Cool it with the anti-semitism, Elon
Reminds me of when he said 'who do you think owns the media?' and every Jew in sight started screaming about antisemitism even though nobody had mentioned Jews at all.
I remember that one. He was responding to someone talking about "news media holding super rich people accountable." So yeah, selective blindness, and deflection when not possible.
it's a dog whistle they say.
pretty accurate whistle it's like I don't blame a dog for getting excited by a whistle if they get a steak every time they hear it.
If you can hear the whistle, then you must be the dog.
Yeah, YOUR information ecosystem. Afraid of losing control, aren't we?
something something freedom, something something safety, something neither
And Fox Newst
Just coming to post this. Can't imagine why people who are getting dinged for attacking parents and supporting/being groomers would want to attack someone who wants free speech.
Don't forget the most important part, the teachers unions. The nonces themselves.
David brock
if I remember correctly this guy was put in charge of Facebook disinformation team at one point
This paternalistic horseshit and the casual way it's referred to makes me want to spew.
"Hate speech" does not exist. This term must be singled out for ridicule at all times.
The idea of a "dangerous scientific theory" is the equivalent of a thought crime. If you dare to propose a hypothesis that challenges the truth claims of a sacred cow you are subject to denouncement or worse. Just look at transgenderism. See Pinker's essay "In Defense of Dangerous Ideas."
all of you globalists could die tomorrow and humanity would be better off.